For Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran, Domestic Politics Play Out on the OPEC Stage

Last Friday’s OPEC meeting resulted in a historically anomalous outcome as the group failed to settle on an official production target, even as the previous target of 30 million barrels per day has been seen as increasingly irrelevant. Nigerian Oil Minister and current OPEC President Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu expressed a belief at the post-meeting press conference that a review of market fundamentals would likely lead to a more active approach at the next meeting in June, as political crises facing governments of member nations complicated attempts to reach agreement last week. This dynamic is likely to continue in future meetings in the absence of truly game-changing increases in oil prices. Last week, statements from the oil ministers of Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran reflected the significant impact of national politics on minister behavior, contributing to the group’s dysfunction.

Last week, statements from the oil ministers of Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran reflected the significant impact of national politics on minister behavior, contributing to the group’s dysfunction.

Venezuela entered last week’s meeting pushing the most aggressive agenda, albeit a largely symbolic one. Calling for a five percent output cut below the official 30 million barrels per day (mbd) target—a ceiling that is already well exceeded by members—was never expected to have a chance of being approved by a Saudi delegation, which is just beginning to see production decreases in non-OPEC rivals. Still, with National Assembly elections looming and oil-funded social spending in tatters, the embattled leftist government of Nicholas Maduro had found it necessary to respond to criticism that he wasn’t doing enough to fight for higher oil prices. The president and heir to Hugo Chavez argued in November that he would insist on OPEC and non-OPEC nations alike managing the market with a long-term vision of setting stable prices, complaining that the market manipulation of “imperialist forces” was responsible for prices for Venezuela’s crude benchmark reaching record lows. His rhetoric during a summit in Riyadh last month blamed unnamed others for using “the infamous Mr. Market” to fix unfair low prices. Yet, despite these shows of defiance, Venezuela’s oil minister was forced to leave OPEC headquarters emptyhanded, and the reality of Venezuela’s economic challenge translated into a sweeping win for the opposition in Sunday’s legislative poll.

Even governments without imminent elections were given extra incentive to call for strong cuts by political pressures at home. Muhammadu Buhari shocked many around the world by becoming the first opposition candidate to defeat an incumbent Nigerian president in history last March, but his government is having trouble gaining the respect and allegiance of its citizens. He campaigned on an economic platform, targeting waste and corruption in government spending, but oil prices have not helped the budgetary hole he has aimed to fix. With little tangible progress in his six-month tenure, and the slump in oil revenue leading to a drying up of foreign exchange availability, both the Nigerian business community and the populace have been increasingly agitated, according to observers familiar with the matter. Thus, it was unsurprising that Kachikwu told reporters in advance of last week’s meeting that he would ask OPEC nations to pressure Iran to delay the return of its lost production to the market after sanctions against the Islamic Republic are lifted. However, it appeared he was quickly forced to abandon this aggressive policy push, telling reporters on the morning of the Vienna meeting that “Iran will come to the market sooner than later,” and that this “is the sovereign right of the Iranian people.”

With legislative elections to the Majlis coming in February, the pragmatists of Rouhani’s administration are under pressure to show tangible results in the quest to regain Iran’s past influence in the oil market.

Iran’s adamant insistence on a quick return to the market, which prevented any such deal from happening, is no doubt bolstered by the political conundrum facing the government of President Hassan Rouhani. While securing the nuclear deal that is set to allow for Tehran’s full return of lost production to the global oil trade is a monumental achievement for the government, it faces intense pressure from hardliner opponents at home who are ready to seize upon any evidence that the benefits of the deal will be less than the pro-negotiation government promised. With legislative elections to the Majlis coming in February, the pragmatists of Rouhani’s administration are under pressure to show tangible results in the quest to regain Iran’s past influence in the oil market. Thus, it’s no surprise that Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh was among the most outspoken officials in Vienna, telling the Persian-language press pack upon his arrival, “We believe OPEC must return to national quotas and enforce those quotas.” He added that Iran wouldn’t “accept any discussion about the increase of Iran’s production after lifting sanctions,” and specifically called out Kachikwu as acting inappropriately for an OPEC president by asking for Iran to delay its return. While Zanganeh’s call for firm quotas were unsuccessful as expected, his adamant defense earned him positive remarks from politicians and news outlets at home, which may have been the best he could have hoped for.

In fact, Zanganeh may have been explaining the role domestic politics would play in complicating efforts for coordination at the meeting when he told the Persian-language press on Thursday, “In truth, decisions aren’t made at OPEC, but made politically in each country.” This pattern was clear for many countries at this meeting and will continue to be so as such in the future.

Major oil producing countries, & wealthy individuals in certain petrostates, have injected billions of dollars into international soccer, and their reach is spreading in an attempt to promote their “soft power.”

Despite the backlash from Bitcoin’s collapse in value, a group led by a former CFTC commissioner is set to launch an oil-backed cryptocurrency called OilCoin. Here's why its investors will run into a number of risks.

Midstream bottlenecks in Canada and output declines in Latin American producers are reshaping the heavy crude market in the Western Hemisphere. Who are the winners and losers from the changes in fundamentals?

Oil prices are rising and US production is growing sharply, but the shale sector is still not turning a profit. Companies have had to raise about $500 billion in bond sales since 2010 and they have spent $280 billion more than they have generated in the past decade.

If more large upstream projects are not sanctioned in the next 12-24 months, oil prices will likely again approach $100 per barrel. Underinvestment and continued geopolitical risk suggest that oil markets are heading into another 'decade of disorder.'

Stay Informed

Subscribe to our newsletter today!

The Fuse is an energy news and analysis site supported by Securing America’s Future Energy. The views expressed here are those of individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the organization.

Issues in Focus

Safety Standards for Crude-By-Rail Shipments

A series of accidents in North America in recent years have raised concerns regarding rail shipments of crude oil. Fatal accidents in Lynchburg, Virginia, Lac-Megantic, Quebec, Fayette County, West Virginia, and (most recently) Culbertson, Montana have prompted public outcry and regulatory scrutiny.

2014 saw an all-time record of 144 oil train incidents in the U.S.—up from just one in 2009—causing a total of more than $7 million in damage.

The spate of crude-by-rail accidents has emerged from the confluence of three factors. First is the massive increase in oil movements by rail, which has increased more than three-fold since 2010. Second is the inadequate safety features of DOT-111 cars, particularly those constructed prior to 2011, which account for roughly 70 percent of tank cars on U.S. railroads. Third is the high volatility of oil produced from the Bakken and other shale formations, which makes this crude more prone towards combustion.

Of these three, rail car safety standards is the factor over which regulators can exert the most control. After months of regulatory review, on May 1, 2015, the White House and the Department of Transportation unveiled the new safety standards. The announcement also coincided with new tank car standards in Canada—a critical move, since many crude by rail shipments cross the U.S.-Canadian border. In the words DOT, the new rule:

Since the rule was announced, Republicans in Congress sought to roll back the provision calling for an advanced breaking system, following concerns from the rail industry that such an upgrade would be unnecessary and could cost billions of dollars. The advanced braking systems are required to be in place by 2021.

Democrats in Congress have argued that the new rules are insufficient to mitigate the danger. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) both issued statements arguing that the rules were insufficient and the timelines for safety improvements were too long.

The current industry standard car, the CPC-1232, came into usage in October 2011. These cars have half inch thick shells (marginally thicker than the DOT-111 7/16 inch shells) and advanced valves that are more resilient in the event of an accident. However, these newer cars were involved in the derailments and explosions in Virginia and West Virginia within the past year, raising questions about the validity of replacing only the DOT-111s manufactured before 2011.

Before the rule was finalized, early reports indicated that the rule submitted to the White House by the Department of Transportation has proposed a two-stage phase-out of the current fleet of railcars, focusing first on the pre-2011 cars, then the current standard CPC-1232 cars. In the final rule, DOT mandated a more aggressive timeline for retrofitting the CPC-1232 cars, imposing a deadline of April 1, 2020 for non-jacketed cars.

Oops!

We weren't able to sign you up for our newsletter.Please check your email address and try again.

DataSpotlight

The recent oil production boom in the United States, while astounding, has created a misleading narrative that the United States is no longer dependent on oil imports. Reports of surging domestic production, calls for relaxation of the crude oil export ban, labels of “Saudi America,” and the recent collapse in oil prices have created a perception that the United States has more oil than it knows what to do with.

This view is misguided. While some forecasts project that the United States could become a self-sufficient oil producer within the next decade, this remains a distant prospect. According to the April 2015 Short Term Energy Outlook, total U.S. crude oil production averaged an estimated 9.3 million barrels per day in March, while total oil demand in the country is over 19 million barrels per day.

This graphic helps illustrate the regional variations in crude oil supply and demand. North America, Europe, and Asia all run significant production deficits, with the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Former Soviet Union are global engines of crude oil supply.